Leaded gas and the EPA...here it comes

MooneyDriver78 said:
There’s a lot of hand waving but not much factual data. They’re implication is the air has lead in it from the exhaust of lead fuel, which I’m sure is true but what’s the concentration? They also stated scientists believe there’s no safe level of lead, so if 1 molecule of lead is detected, then that area should be considered unsafe.

For y’all that live in airparks, do you test your blood for lead content?
Click to expand...
Lots of evidence about lead poisoning around airports and effects on people, especially children....this was a long time needed.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
Lots of evidence about lead poisoning around airports and effects on people, especially children....this was a long time needed.
Click to expand...

Where? You got some links? Yes evidence about lead and it’s effects, but no surveys of areas around airports.

Even the CDC site doesn’t mention airports as a source of lead.

Firearms, paint, electronics, industrial sites, etc But no mention of airports or avgas.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Where? You got some links? Yes evidence about lead and it’s effects, but no surveys of areas around airports.

Even the CDC site doesn’t mention airports as a source of lead.

Firearms, paint, electronics, industrial sites, etc But no mention of airports or avgas.
Click to expand...
I think that firearms, electronics, industrial sites pretty much sums up POA. Coincidence?
 
This, this, and this are all threads on POA decrying the near demise of leaded petrol dating back to 2008. I bet there were ones on the Red Board before that. I'm not overly worried about it.
 
Not sure your point ? AVGAS hasn't gone away because of being only approved fuel all these years and outlawing as every other use had would severely economically impact the industry and economy. Now there is alternative, just one, but the fact is there is now an alternative. I expect to see California outlaw AVGAS as they have proclaimed for decades as soon as alternative is approved....CA is biggest GA market and production on west coast will significantly be impacted and cost likely goes up to make refining and distributing it worth while to smaller market.

California leads the the way environmentally for many other states, and more states will follow. AVGAS is considerably more cost outside USA with few exceptions, I expect we will be close to same until yet another alternative is approved and some competition occurs.

I converted a C172 to flex fuel so I don't worry about AVGAS much anymore unless on a long x-country and AVGAS is only option. I fill a SUV up at gas station a block from the airport gate with cheapest fuel I can find and pump right in to the plane. I even get a tax rebate for off highway use!

8.jpg
 
Given the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, I'm not sure that a state could prohibit leaded avgas without the FAA's concurrence. Somewhere it was mentioned that Santa Clara County wanted to do that at Reid-Hillview Airport in San Jose, CA, but the county attorney apparently advised them that they might not be able to.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
Just google it. Here's just a few, from MIT and EPA. Maybe this lead poison hype is yet another conspiracy.

https://countyairports.sccgov.org/s...rbornn Lead Concentrations at US Airports.pdf

https://www.greencarcongress.com/20...tribute-to-1b-in-annual-damages-due-to-i.html
Click to expand...

The 1st paper is about creating models of lead for any airport based on a couple of model airports that were monitored. Basically typical lead concentration is +0.2 ug in the runup area and drops to 0.02 ug 100m downwind.
Obviously this changes based on wind, number of planes, and type of planes…this is what they were modeling. They didn’t try to model areas offsite of the airport.
At this point the question becomes what is the safe level of lead, which as mentioned previously is assumed to be zero.

The 2nd link contradicts the first since it reported 0.2 would be the lowest levels (or implies it by not showing any zero lead areas in the US) and much higher levels are prevalent. The second one focuses on lowering of IQs assuming these high levels of lead and gives no indication where they got the data. My guess is they just took the highest readings since taking lower readings wouldn’t feed their narrative. They have no medical studies to backup their claims. Like trying to coordinate blood lead levels with IQ.
That’s the problem, when the government says to investigate something, there’s an inherited bias because if I give you a grant/money to look for X, you know if you return without finding X you won’t be getting another grant.
By name of the website alone you know the 2nd link is going to be junk science (greencarcongress).
 
Way too many research scientists (as well as the general public) have been brainwashed to believe that the scientific method spits out a single answer that cannot be denied. The reality is that research science spits out nothing more than the best guess of the day, often literally conflicting with yesterday and tomorrow’s best guess. That’s useful in many arenas, but when politics are involved it’s most useful as a club to achieve your agenda with.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
That’s the problem, when the government says to investigate something, there’s an inherited bias because if I give you a grant/money to look for X, you know if you return without finding X you won’t be getting another grant.
Click to expand...
People who have participated in the process say otherwise.
 
Decades of Junk science? Maybe, but there are several blogs that attribute Big Foot's demise to high lead content in blood after living at a North Colorado fly in community for several years. I'll see if I can post them for reference.
 
Palmpilot said:
People who have participated in the process say otherwise.
Click to expand...

No chance of bias, eh?

Perhaps the selection process (people willing to participate in the grant application process) creates a bias... nah
 
Bob Noel said:
No chance of bias, eh?

Perhaps the selection process (people willing to participate in the grant application process) creates a bias... nah
Click to expand...
No, not really. I've received money from the American Petroleum Institute, for mechanistic organic chemistry. Very often, the grant money supports research that isn't directly supporting the political goals of the organization. When a research article is published, the journals list the funding sources and employers so readers can more easily note conflicts of interest.
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
Just google it. Here's just a few, from MIT and EPA. Maybe this lead poison hype is yet another conspiracy.

https://countyairports.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb686/files/Model-extrapolated Est of Airbornn Lead Concentrations at US Airports.pdf

https://www.greencarcongress.com/20...tribute-to-1b-in-annual-damages-due-to-i.html
Click to expand...
The second link is NOT the ACS paper (the author is a researcher at MIT). It is, at best, excerpts of the report and are cherry-picked for the purposes of the web site.

MooneyDriver78 said:
That’s the problem, when the government says to investigate something, there’s an inherited bias because if I give you a grant/money to look for X, you know if you return without finding X you won’t be getting another grant.
By name of the website alone you know the 2nd link is going to be junk science (greencarcongress).
Click to expand...
Actually, you'd be surprised. The vast majority of grants (NSF, NIH, DoD, DOE, NASA, etc) are for basic research. So long as the work can be published in reputable journals, people can get other grants.

The second link, as you mentioned, has an ax to grind. Likewise, the link in the original post that started this thread, is nothing more than an opinion and is a front for some environmental organization or another, and has no more standing than any other opinion. "Send me money to help this cause!"
https://grist.org/regulation/avgas-lead-epa-aviation-san-jose-reid-hillview/
 
Cap'n Jack said:
No, not really. I've received money from the American Petroleum Institute, for mechanistic organic chemistry. Very often, the grant money supports research that isn't directly supporting the political goals of the organization. When a research article is published, the journals list the funding sources and employers so readers can more easily note conflicts of interest.

The second link is NOT the ACS paper (the author is a researcher at MIT). It is, at best, excerpts of the report and are cherry-picked for the purposes of the web site.


Actually, you'd be surprised. The vast majority of grants (NSF, NIH, DoD, DOE, NASA, etc) are for basic research. So long as the work can be published in reputable journals, people can get other grants.

The second link, as you mentioned, has an ax to grind. Likewise, the link in the original post that started this thread, is nothing more than an opinion and is a front for some environmental organization or another, and has no more standing than any other opinion. "Send me money to help this cause!"
https://grist.org/regulation/avgas-lead-epa-aviation-san-jose-reid-hillview/
Click to expand...



But that doesn’t mean there isn’t selection bias among who chooses to apply for which grants. Those choosing to apply may have a pet theory they want to pursue. For example, no one who thinks eVTOL will never be practical would apply for a grant to do feasibility studies, whereas advocates would apply. That’s an inherent selection bias.
 
Half Fast said:
But that doesn’t mean there isn’t selection bias among who chooses to apply for which grants. Those choosing to apply may have a pet theory they want to pursue. For example, no one who thinks eVTOL will never be practical would apply for a grant to do feasibility studies, whereas advocates would apply. That’s an inherent selection bias.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they apply? Either way, it's a feasibility study. The grant request would even be be worded in the same fashion: "Evaluate the feasibility of electric eVTOL aircraft, with respect to range, lifting capacity, and economics"
 
Bob Noel said:
No chance of bias, eh?

Perhaps the selection process (people willing to participate in the grant application process) creates a bias... nah
Click to expand...
There's always a chance of bias, but propagandists exaggerate it when science makes discoveries that are unfavorable to their interests.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I know active participants that would agree there is merit to the claims of bias.

I see that once again anecdotal evidence is admissible on POA. glad I could help.
Click to expand...
Of course there are ethical lapses in the sciences. You know, humans? if there wasn't bias or other problems, there wouldn't be a need for guidelines such as those listed in the link below. Unfortunately, a very few people think the rules don't apply to them. These few tend to be used as "evidence" when some aspect of our best current knowledge might change the status-quo, or the the advantages someone has in the market or society.

https://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ethics.pdf
 
We should also acknowledge "editorial" bias. An individual or committee decides which peer-reviewed papers to include in a scientific journal. Just as an example, not as a political statement, try getting a paper published exploring the possibility of solar variability as causality for global warming rather then an anthropocentric cause.

Those editorial individuals and committees have their own biases and interests. As pilots who subscribe to various periodicals we often ask ourselves, why do the advertisements and even some of the articles seem biased toward kerosene burners, uber-avionics, and other things 90% of the readership is not interested in or cannot afford. For those periodicals, it comes down to money. While advertising dollars are fairly straight forward, don't think similar and more arcane biases do not influence what gets published in peer-reviewed journals.
 
Domenick said:
We should also acknowledge "editorial" bias. An individual or committee decides which peer-reviewed papers to include in a scientific journal. Just as an example, not as a political statement, try getting a paper published exploring the possibility of solar variability as causality for global warming rather then an anthropocentric cause.
Click to expand...
Has there been anything new on the subject? Unless there is a new variable that hasn't been taken into account, or another factor, I doubt people will write new papers on it, other than reviews or fine-tuning models.
Here's a reputable journal article on the subject from 1996:
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.272.5264.981
Nature publishing group is reputable (more recent, 2013):
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2040
and one from 1980:
https://www.nature.com/articles/286868a0
Here's a summary from NOAA:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight

People already know about the Maunder minima.

I had to rewrite my paper to convince the editors of a journal that I created a new method to calculate purification methods- they originally accepted it as a review, but the rewrite convinced them it was a new method and was published as a technology note (shorter than a full paper):
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscombsci.8b00187
In this case, my poor description of the technique made it difficult to understand. People are still measuring solar radiation, if, for no other reason, to make a guess of the longer-term weather. If someone measures a credible variation from the model, they'll write a paper and if they make a clear and compelling case, it will be published.

Domenick said:
Those editorial individuals and committees have their own biases and interests. As pilots who subscribe to various periodicals we often ask ourselves, why do the advertisements and even some of the articles seem biased toward kerosene burners, uber-avionics, and other things 90% of the readership is not interested in or cannot afford. For those periodicals, it comes down to money. While advertising dollars are fairly straight forward, don't think similar and more arcane biases do not influence what gets published in peer-reviewed journals.
Click to expand...
Advertising dollars is a bit on a non-sequitur here, as most peer-reviewed journals don't take advertising dollars; those with advertising are for laboratory products. Some journals are paid for by subscription fees and access fees. Others are paid for by authors (open access). The open access journals lead to another abuse, where some publish anything so long as they get paid; these aren't reputable journals.

Is there bias? Sure! Mostly of the "Doesn't fit with existing knowledge" type of bias.
Ask Barry Marshall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall#:~:text=computer chip company.-,Awards and honours,gastritis and peptic ulcer disease".

Or Katalin Kariko:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karikó
Her contributions are especially timely.

Despite that initial bias, both of them were ultimately vindicated. Barry got a Nobel prize, and I'd be surprised of Katalin doesn't. Reviewers really don't want to be known as being the ones who stopped Nobel-level research. Both examples show that science eventually corrects itself.
 
Last edited:
Domenick said:
We should also acknowledge "editorial" bias. An individual or committee decides which peer-reviewed papers to include in a scientific journal. Just as an example, not as a political statement, try getting a paper published exploring the possibility of solar variability as causality for global warming rather then an anthropocentric cause.
Click to expand...
Just FYI, you can go onto Google Scholar and search for "solar variability and global warming" and find that there are literally thousands of articles and conference papers on the subject. Moving along...
 
Johnbo said:
Right now I’m the coolest kid on the block because I get to burn leaded gas that smells great. Without the lead I’m gonna loose cool points.

I wonder what the new GAMI stuff smells like. I hope it’s not like mogas that stinks you up for days after a spill.
Click to expand...

You need to stock up on "Airwick Burning 100LL Air Fresheners", and use them appropriately.
 
UPDATE: https://countyairports.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb686/files/newsletter/2021 12-06 SCAN.pdf

Looks like Santa Clara has banned the sale of 100LL effective Jan 1.

100LL Will No Longer Be Available after December 31, 2021

One of the most immediate consequences for airport users as a result of the discussion on airbornelead, is the elimination of sale and distribution of 100LL fuel at RHV and E16 by January 1, 2022. To restate that, beginning January 1, 2022 100LL will no longer be available for sale at RHV or E16. Currently, two of the four fuel providers at RHV have already transitioned to Swift Fuels UL94, the only currently available unleaded aviation gasoline. It is expected that the remaining two fuel providers on the airport will also make that transition by January 1, 2022. The E16 fuel provider also has plans totransition to UL94 and Jet Fuel only by January 1. If you are interested in utilizing UL94, an STC is required. Check https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/ to verify your aircrafts compatibility and apply for the STC.
Click to expand...
 
Half Fast said:
UPDATE: https://countyairports.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb686/files/newsletter/2021 12-06 SCAN.pdf

Looks like Santa Clara has banned the sale of 100LL effective Jan 1.
Click to expand...
Joe_B1 said:
I am so glad I live and fly way far away from that asylum.
Click to expand...
Here's the real reason for stopping 100LL sales:
Airport Closure In the recent past, the Board has discussed the closure of RHV in 2031 when the current FAA development grant assurances expire. (When the County accepted past FAA grant funding, those funds came with a series of requirements – or assurances -, one of which is to ensure that the airport remain safe and operational for the subsequent 20 years).
Click to expand...
Get rid of the planes by cutting off fuel, it's easier to sell the airport to developers. This has nothing at all to do with 100LL.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Here's the real reason for stopping 100LL sales:

Get rid of the planes by cutting off fuel, it's easier to sell the airport to developers. This has nothing at all to do with 100LL.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the gymnastics they engage in on that one, seeing that they cite as the reason they want to try and close being lead contamination and poisoning of children.
 
How many planes will this effect at Santa Clara? Some should be able to use UL94.
 
N1120A said:
I'd love to see the gymnastics they engage in on that one, seeing that they cite as the reason they want to try and close being lead contamination and poisoning of children.
Click to expand...
Probably too few planes, losing money on the airport, we'll make big bucks selling it to developers, and those big bucks will go towards lowing your property taxes :rolleyes:
 
Half Fast said:
How many planes will this effect at Santa Clara? Some should be able to use UL94.
Click to expand...

Is UL94 STC'd for anything bigger than an IO360? There are quite a few 6 cylinders there.

Cap'n Jack said:
Probably too few planes, losing money on the airport, we'll make big bucks selling it to developers, and those big bucks will go towards lowing your property taxes :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's not how property taxes work in California, but their entire MO has been this claim of lead poisoning, so there's no way they could redevelop the airport into housing without Superfund being there for decades.
 
N1120A said:
That's not how property taxes work in California, but their entire MO has been this claim of lead poisoning, so there's no way they could redevelop the airport into housing without Superfund being there for decades.
Click to expand...
If not property taxes, they will find some other way to claim they are reducing taxes to the people there.
It will be amazing how the old lead data was wrong, and they could sell the land off now. :rolleyes:
 
Cap'n Jack said:
If not property taxes, they will find some other way to claim they are reducing taxes to the people there.
It will be amazing how the old lead data was wrong, and they could sell the land off now. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The claim is usually an increase in property values.
 
N1120A said:
Is UL94 STC'd for anything bigger than an IO360? There are quite a few 6 cylinders there.
Click to expand...
I know that it's STCed for the low-compression version of the IO-540, because about a month ago, Civil Air Patrol purchased it for the 182T that is based at my squadron at RHV.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I know that it's STCed for the IO-540, because about a month ago, Civil Air Patrol purchased it for the 182T that is based at my squadron at RHV.
Click to expand...

I know there's a bunch of Bonanzas and Cirruses on that field that are gonna have a problem.
 
They couldn't have used it as a reason if E0 (MoGas) as promoted by EAA and Petersen aviation (no relation) had been more widely accepted and available. This controversy has been going on for over 25 years. How much time should our market have needed to respond?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top